Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone

This book embodies much of Kant's mature moral philosophy. While the book's title suggests that it's only about religion, it's not! It offers a mature perspective on his earlier moral works. From my perspective, once cannot legitimately call oneself an "expert" on Kant's moral theory without reading this book (and several others).

It would be a great benefit to me if I could openly admit a fondness for a Kant kind of crazy which is discussed very near the end of RELIGION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON ALONE, which I discovered when I was seeking to comprehend the meaning of the index entry: Fetishism, 165-8, 181 ff. See Faith, ceremonial, and Religion For me this was like looking up crazy in an index and finding an entry for: Crazy, 182-6, See talking to yourself, and Prayer To quote Kant directly: 1. Praying, thought of as an inner formal service of God and hence as a means of grace, is a superstitious illusion (a fetish-making); for it is no more than a stated wish directed to a Being who needs no such information regarding the inner disposition of the wisher; therefore nothing is accomplished by it, and it discharges none of the duties to which, as commands of God, we are obligated; hence God is not really served. . . . (pp. 182-183). Anyone will find the truth of this last remark confirmed if he conceives of a pious and well-meaning man, but one who is circumscribed in respect of these purified religious concepts, whom some one takes unawares, I will not say in praying aloud, but merely in behavior indicative of prayer. Everyone will of him, of course, without my saying so, expect a man thus surprised to fall into confusion or embarrassment, as though in a situation whereof he should be ashamed. But why? It is because a man caught talking aloud to himself is suspected for the moment of having a slight attack of madness; and thus do we also judge a man (and not altogether unjustly) when we find him, all alone, in an occupation or attitude which can properly belong only to one who sees some one else before him--and in the example we have given this is not the case. (p. 183, n. *). The Part Two "Concerning The Pseudo-Service Of God In A Statutory Religion" which begins on page 156 is concerned with "religious illusion whose consequence is a pseudo-service, that is, pretending honoring of God through which we work directly counter to the service demanded by God Himself." (p. 156). I used to feel that way when I was in the army, serving the army for a few short years, including a year in Nam and a week in Cambodia, having the feeling when I listened to chaplains that I had actually been to church before and the overriding message which I heard elsewhere hardly applied to what the chaplains were saying. I was not entirely happy about being in the army, and my inner reaction to being in the infantry in Nam was more like shock than Kant, but Kant never wrote a book called WAR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON ALONE. In Kant's book, the second topic in this Part Two is called "The Moral Principle of Religion Opposed to the Religious Illusion." (p. 158). The waste of effort is summarized by Kant as "They are all alike in worth (or rather worthlessness), and it is a mere affectation to regard oneself as more excellent, because of a subtler deviation from the one and only intellectu

I assume that this "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone" is a different translation of the same book entitled by another publisher as "Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason." The question is, which is better and for what reasons?

Let me state up front that I do not think Kant succeeded in what he tried to do in this book. That caveat in place, Kant's book a fine attempt at grounding religious belief in something other than revelation. Now, of course that might ruffle a few feathers on both sides of the belief-fence (as it did in his day, and will continue to do), but that was Kant's goal in this text. However, no understanding of Kant's reasoning in this book (or any other of his works) can be complete without taking into account the Lutheran Pietism in which he was raised. (Regarding the review below, Kant was never Roman Catholic; the Lutheran streak is part of what made Kant who he was, for good or ill.) The subjectivism of his Pietist background had an almost incalculable affect on Kant's philosophy and metaphysics. As a matter of fact, the subjectivist principle of his "Copernican revolution" in philosophy could arguably be seen as a natural outgrowth of the personalism that his Lutheran Pietist upbringing gave to him. Members of the Pietist sects current in Kant's day believed that religion should be realized, contained, and held deep within the inner self. They also held that religion should be expressed through simplicity and obedience to moral law. Hence, to oversimplify, we get Kant's famous "starry heavens above and the moral law within" as the two things which fill him "with ever increasing wonder." Kant was convinced that the moral basis of religion, specifically the Christian religion, was available to any and all by introspection and meditation. In this work, he sets out to show why that is the case and how it could be achieved. Kant's anti-supernaturalist project of Kant's book is explicit from the beginning, though I should point out that, as in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant certainly does not refuse to entertain ideas such as miracles and such. He simply says that they are not he purview of speculative philosophy. This could become a naive fideism, but with Kant it (arguably) never does. What Kant wants to do is plain in his title, and clear in his text: develop the idea of religion strictly within the bounds of reason, alone. For Kant, pure philosophy was the realm of human reason, and within that realm (at least pushing against the antinomies) religion could be found and established. Anything beyond that was simply beyond the ability and thus the interest of philosophy. This is a great translation and as good an introduction to reading Kant as any of his works.

Though the title may imply so, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone is not an attempt to confine religion to reason per se, but rather an attempt to display what can be perceived by reason on the subject of reason, naturally of Kant, a priori (outside of experience). When Kant encountered a topic that was outside the limits of reason (i.e. miracles) he fully conceded that reason could not explain that which is of direct Divine influence, thus making his point clear that reason can be useful within religion, but there comes a point where God takes over and reason must bow before His Sovereignty. This book contains a wealth of interesting ideas and concepts, and I personally used it to teach lessons to my Sunday School class. However, due to Kant's deeply profound writing style, this book, along with his others, is generally misunderstood, or else not understood at all. I believe that Religion would be an excellent devotional if taken in small parts over a period of time. There are many interesting concepts that could be overlooked if one rushed through, therefore it is imperative that the reader be sure to take time to think on what Kant was trying to convey. As a Christian witness, Kant made many beautiful comments on the necessity of being "Born-again" through the Son of God and on the Law of God and its influence on the sinner who is incapable of being righteous outside of this law. Kant is not someone who will be quoted in a common Sunday morning sermon, but I believe that he is an unsung Christian hero who has been disregarded due to the difficulty of his writing and his Catholic origin, at least in Protestant denominations, which to quote Catholic theologians is generally taboo. All of his works are noteworthy, but a little more effort is needed to read and understand him than the average person is willing to invest, but I believe that the insight gained from his works are well worth the effort.